Bible Commentaries

Matthew 23:35 — 35. ] ὅπως , not ‘ in such a way that ’ (?), as Webst. and Wilk.: but strictly ‘in order that.’ αἷμα δίκ . or ἀθῷον is a common expression in the O.T. See 4 Kings Matthew 21:16 ; Matthew 24:4 : Jeremiah 33:1-26 :(26) 15; and more especially Lamentations 4:13 , which perhaps our Lord referred to in speaking this. πᾶν αἷ . ] Thus in Babylon, Revelation 18:24 , is found the blood of all that were slain upon the earth

Matthew 26:26 — 26. ] While they were eating, during the meal , as distinguished from the distribution of the cup, which was after it. No especial stress must be laid on the article before ἄρτον , if read; it would be the bread which lay before Him : see below.

Matthew 26:69-75 — 69 75. ] OUR LORD IS THRICE DENIED BY PETER. Mark 14:66-72 .Luke 22:56-62; Luke 22:56-62 . Joh 18:17-18 ; John 18:25-27 . This narrative furnishes one of the clearest instances of the entire independency of the four Gospels of one another . In it, they all differ, and, supposing the denial to have taken place

Matthew 28:20 — 20. ] Even in the case of the adult, this teaching must, in greater part , follow his baptism; though as we have seen (on Mat 28:19 ), in his exceptional case, some of it must go before . For this teaching is nothing less than the building up of the

Matthew 5:3 — 3. οἱ πτ . τῷ πν . ] οὐκ εἶπεν , οἱ πτ . τοῖς χρήμασιν , ἀλλ ʼ, οἱ πτ . τῷ πνεύματι , τουτέστιν οἱ ταπεινοὶ τῇ προαιρέσει · καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ . Euthym [32] τί ἐστιν “ οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι ;” οἱ ταπεινοὶ καὶ συντετριμμένοι τὴν καρδίαν . Chrysostom, Hom. xv. in Matthew 1:1-25 , vol. vii. p. 185. ‘Ne quis putaret paupertatem, quæ nonnunquam necessitate portatur, a Domino prædicari, adjunxit,

Luke 4:44 — 44. ] See Mat 4:23-25 and notes. καὶ ἦν κηρ .… is a formal close to this section of the narrative, and chronologically separates it from what follows. The reading τῆς Ἰουδαίας must, on any intelligible critical principles, be adopted; and Tregelles can hardly be

Luke 5:1-11 — 1 11. ] THE MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISHES. CALL OF PETER AND THE SONS OF ZEBEDEE. The question at once meets us, whether this account, in its form here peculiar to Luke, is identical in its subject-matter with Matthew 4:18-22 , and Mark 1:16-20 . With regard to this, we may notice the following particulars. (1) Contrary to Schleiermacher’s inference (Trans. pp. 75, 76), it must be, I think, that of most readers, that a previous and close relation had subsisted between

Luke 6:1 — supposes it to have arisen from putting together two separate glosses, in the margin of some MSS., one δευτέρῳ , the other πρώτῳ : originally inserted, the first, to distinguish this sabbath from that in ch. Luke 4:31 , the latter, from that in Luke 6:6 . (2) Chrysostom, Hom. xxxix. on Matt., vol. vii. p. 431, says, ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς φησιν Ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ . τί δέ ἐστιν , ἐν δευτεροπρώτῳ ; ὅταν διπλῆ ἡ ἀργία ᾖ , καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου τοῦ κυρίου , καὶ ἑτέρας ἑορτῆς διαδεχομένης . Paulus and Olsh. also take

John 1:51 — divine power, his faith would increase from strength to strength at the greater proofs which should from that time forward be given. It is perhaps best to set a question at πιστεύεις ; but see notes on the similar sentences, ch. John 16:31 , and John 20:29 . John 1: 52. 52. ] ἀμὴν ἀμήν is peculiar to John. The other Evangelists use ἀμήν once only in such asseverations. The LXX do not use it in this sense. Stier remarks (i. 36, edn. 2), that the Verily, verily, I say unto you of the Lord, is

John 11:33 — ἐμβριμάομαι can bear but one meaning, that of indignor (“infremuit,” Vulg.), the expression of indignation and rebuke, not of sorrow . This has been here acknowledged by all the expositors who have paid any attention to the usage of the word. (2) That both from ὠς εἶδεν , &c., from καὶ ἐτάραξ . ἑαυτ ., and John 11:35 , the feeling in the Lord was clearly one of rising sympathy , which vented itself at last in tears. These two things being premised, I think the meaning to be, that Jesus,

Romans 1:5 — supposing ὑ . π . to mean ‘ obedience produced by faith .’ The key to the words is found in ref. Acts, πολύς τε ὄχλος τῶν ἱερέων ὑπήκουον τῇ πίστει , compared with Paul’s own usage of joining an objective genitive with ὑπακοή , see 2 Corinthians 10:5 , εἰς τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ χριστοῦ . So that πίστεως is the faith ; not = ‘the gospel which is to be believed’ (as Fritzsche, citing ch. Rom 10:16 ), but the state of salvation, in which men stand by faith . And so these words

Romans 11:1 — 1 .] I say then (a false inference from ch. Romans 10:19-21 , made in order to be refuted), Did ( μή , it cannot surely be, that) God cast off His people (as would almost appear from the severe words just adduced)? Be it not so: for I also am an Israelite ( ἐκ γένους Ἰσρ ., Php 3:5 ), of the seed of Abraham

Romans 11:4 — 4 .] But what saith the divine response to him ( χρηματισμός , see reff. and reff. to the verb, Act 10:22 )? I have left to myself (here the Apostle corrects a mistake of the LXX, who have for κατέλιπον καταλείψεις , in the Complut. ed. κατλείψω . He has added to the Heb. הִשְׁאַרְתִּי , ‘ I have left,’ ‘kept as a remainder ,’

Romans 4:17 — wider term than νενεκρωμένον , the genus , of which that is a species ). The peculiar excellence of Abraham’s faith, that it overleaped the obstacles of physical incapacity, and nonentity, and believed implicitly God’s promise. Compare 2 Corinthians 1:9 . καὶ καλ . τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα ] Much difficulty has been found here: and principally owing to an idea that this clause must minutely correspond with the former, and furnish another instance of God’s creative Almightiness.

Ephesians 4:11 — 11 .] Resumption of the subject the diversity of gifts, all bestowed by Him, as a motive to unity. And HE (emphatic; ‘it is He, that’) gave (not for ἔθετο , any more than in ch. Ephesians 1:22 : the gifts which He gave to His Church are now enumerated. “The idea is, that the men who filled the office, no less than the office itself, were a divine gift.” Eadie) some as Apostles (see 1 Corinthians 12:28 , and note; and a good

Colossians 1:24 — 24 .] Transition from the mention of himself to his joy in his sufferings for the Church, and (25 29) for the great object of his ministry : all with a view to enhance the glory, and establish the paramount claim of Christ. I now (refers to ἐγενόμην

Hebrews 11:19 — dead, that Abraham believed. This, which is so plain from the form of the sentence, is made plainer still by the use of the present ἐγείρειν , not the aor. ἐγεῖραι which would more probably be used if a single case had been in view: see Matthew 16:21 ; Mark 14:28 ; Luke 3:8 ; Luke 9:22 . The aor. here (see digest) has probably been a correction arising from the application to Isaac) even from (among) the dead (St. Matt. commonly uses, with ἐγεῖρειν , ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν : St. Luke, John, Paul, ἐκ νεκρῶν

1 John 1:8 — ἐάν with subj. above, 1Jn 1:6 ) that we have not sin (i. e. in the course and abiding of our walking in light: if we maintain that we are pure and free from all stain of sin. St. John is writing to persons whose sins have been forgiven them (ch. 1Jn 2:12 ), and therefore necessarily the present tense ἔχομεν refers not to any previous state of sinful life before conversion, but to their now existing state and the sins to which they are liable in that state. And in thus referring, it takes up the conclusion

Revelation 12:1-17 — by which God ἐσήμανεν to John the revelations of this book, ch. Rev 1:1 ) was seen in heaven (heaven here is manifestly not only the show-place of the visions as seen by the Seer, but has a substantial place in the vision: for below, Revelation 12:7 ff., we have the heaven contrasted with the earth, and the dragon cast out of heaven into the earth. See more there), a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon ( ἡ σελήνη = ἔχουσα τὴν σελήνην ) beneath her feet (see Song of Solomon 6:10 , which

Revelation 7:13-17 — and the “Qui genus? unde domo?” of Virgil. Both enquiries are answered in Rev 7:14 )? And I said to him, My Lord (the address is one of deep reverence as to a heavenly being. See the limits of this reverence in ch. Revelation 19:10 , Rev 22:8-9 ), thou knowest (see ref. Ezek., from which the form of expression comes. The σὺ οἶδας must not with Ebrard be forced to mean, “I know well, but thou knowest better:” but must be taken in its simple acceptation, “I know not,